270 réponses à ce sujet

[Abyss108]

 

 

 

Said what?

 

This is ridiculous logic, because you are trying to use extremely unlikely event as example to support "but it didn't happen in fiction" thus it can't happen in fiction , sorry were you killed by meteorite in real life? It can happen both in real life and fiction but as i said it is extremely unlikely event.  

 

The point isn't how likely something is, it's how narratively satisfying something is. It's chekrov's gun principle. The narrative has put weight behind the Inquisitors words, hense it must be important.

 

"Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."

[nightscrawl]

^ I'm not adding my opinion one way or the other to the discussion as it relates to the HoF, but I do want to address your "gun principle" argument. I don't think it applies in the case of an RPG. There are many dialogues and opportunities for a character to say something that are only about role-play and nothing more. You can have a conversation with Josephine about your relationship to your parents (Trevelyan), but your choice is never once referenced during the rest of the game; it is about RP only. Perhaps that choice should be called on at some point to give the player a greater sense of depth, but that isn't what happens and we have to accept it.

 

In such a case of mentioning a weapon or other object as set dressing, it can also simply be set dressing. Perhaps the person is an avid hunter. Perhaps they are a nutty survivalist. Perhaps they are a collector of antiques. There are several scenarios in which a weapon adorning a wall can be used to say something about the person to whom it belongs, rather than as a pre-introduced plot device.

 

Also, if a great deal of the story is going to take place in a given setting, you might wish to describe it in detail so the reader has a clear picture of the place they're going to spending so much time in. Do that once and you never have to describe the scene again unless it is for some specific purpose -- going for the gun to stop a prowler.

 

AND I would argue that a writer putting too much emphasis on a single object with the specific intent to use it later on, disregarding other objects in the scene as part of the description, is foreshadowing just a bit too much. Of course, that depends on how it all plays out in the final action sequence. I dislike it in movies where the camera clearly holds or zooms in on some object for this purpose; it ruins the element of surprise. Keep it as set dressing among many other things so the reader/viewer doesn't expect what is to come.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 19 février 2016 - 02:31 .

[TheKomandorShepard]

The point isn't how likely something is, it's how  something is. It's chekrov's gun principle. The narrative has put weight behind the Inquisitors words, hense it must be important.

 

"Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."

 

Not everything has to be "narratively satisfying", by your logic just because Da 2 played up HoF and Hawke disappearance as big connected part of conspiracy it has to be connected and some sort plan was behind it , because it wasn't and there was no conspiracy.

 

As for your quote , not rly in the case .Sadly things like that make writing terribly predictable for consumer.

[robertthebard]

Morrigan is connected to Flemeth
(you said this for the 20th times by now)and i gave the same answer 20th times.
Does suppose to mean something for the Inquisitor?
Does it matter for my mission?
Answer no
Why the Inquisitor should care about her personal conflict?
So saying that Cullen is a writer pet because he is there for fan service while at the same time Morrigan isn't because of her personal subplot is bias and hypocrisy.
The inquisitor and the new players don't need to know her conflict with Flemeth because it is not necessary to defeat Cory.

2 -3resolved don't even mention the OGB from now on

4
She is still a writer pet ,the fact that Leliana is overused does not change the fact that Morrigan is a writer pet like Leliana.

She is in DAO and is unkillable unlike all the others companions

She is in Wh and has plot armor against the warden

She is in DAI and has plot armor against the dragon

Of course Wot does not count because you said so OK,very fair

She is the narrator for the vanilla game.

She is a writer pet.

The End

Actually, Flemeth does bring something to the story.  She brings the knowledge of how to either summon a dragon to fight against Cory's, or teaches Morrigan to shapeshift into one.  No matter how much you want to handwave it away, Morrigan is entwined in that part of the game.  She brings the eluvian, and the knowledge on how to use it.  For some reason, some seem to believe that where it comes from matters, like they can't be moved, or something, I'm not sure, all the arguments read the same when the main idea is "bring back the HoF".  However, w/out that knowledge, we're not going to the Temple of Mythal.  This is, after all, her excuse for getting us to go, regardless if she knew the truth beforehand.

[Abyss108]

^ I'm not adding my opinion one way or the other to the discussion as it relates to the HoF, but I do want to address your "gun principle" argument. I don't think it applies in the case of an RPG. There are many dialogues and opportunities for a character to say something that are only about role-play and nothing more. You can have a conversation with Josephine about your relationship to your parents (Trevelyan), but your choice is never once referenced during the rest of the game; it is about RP only. Perhaps that choice should be called on at some point to give the player a greater sense of depth, but that isn't what happens and we have to accept it.

 

In such a case of mentioning a weapon or other object as set dressing, it can also simply be set dressing. Perhaps the person is an avid hunter. Perhaps they are a nutty survivalist. Perhaps they are a collector of antiques. There are several scenarios in which a weapon adorning a wall can be used to say something about the person to whom it belongs, rather than as a pre-introduced plot device.

 

Also, if a great deal of the story is going to take place in a given setting, you might wish to describe it in detail so the reader has a clear picture of the place they're going to spending so much time in. Do that once and you never have to describe the scene again unless it is for some specific purpose -- going for the gun to stop a prowler.

 

AND I would argue that a writer putting too much emphasis on a single object with the specific intent to use it later on, disregarding other objects in the scene as part of the description, is foreshadowing just a bit too much. Of course, that depends on how it all plays out in the final action sequence. I dislike it in movies where the camera clearly holds or zooms in on some object for this purpose; it ruins the element of surprise. Keep it as set dressing among many other things so the reader/viewer doesn't expect what is to come.

 

Except talking to Josephine about your family does serve a narrative function, to define your character. You are not defining your character in the last ten minutes of the game.

 

You are taking the gun example too literally. Of course you can have guns on a wall simply to show someone is a hunter. But if the camera zooms in on one particular gun, whilst omnious music plays, and the characters talk about how important it is that they are going to use that gun for a specific event, and then in the next scene talk again about how that gun will be used for a specific event, and then that event occurs with no mention of the gun, your audience is going to be very confused.

 

Not everything has to be "narratively satisfying", by your logic just because Da 2 played up HoF and Hawke disappearance as big connected part of conspiracy it has to be connected and some sort plan was behind it , because it wasn't and there was no conspiracy.

 

As for your quote , not rly in the case .Sadly things like that make writing terribly predictable for consumer.

 

Except there was no conspiracy. There was a line of dialogue saying the hero wasn't around. 

 

A red herring is where the writors hint at one thing, to stop you figuring out the real answer for a twist. There's no benefit to trying trick players into thinking the Inquisitors might return. That doesn't make players surprised when we get a new protagonist, because we already expect that, and there's no point to surprising people with that.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Except there was no conspiracy. There was a line of dialogue saying the hero wasn't around. 

 

A red herring is where the writors hint at one thing, to stop you figuring out the real answer for a twist. There's no benefit to trying trick players into thinking the Inquisitors might return. That doesn't make players surprised when we get a new protagonist, because we already expect that, and there's no point to surprising people with that.

Except there was , Leliana says that disappearances aren't not coincidence and they were connected (Cassandra said same thing in Dai) and as i said they weren't.

 

Not necessarily, Red herring is a false lead that makes consumer draw wrong conclusion and doesn't require a twist, gun example that you used is pretty good example i can demonstrate on, narrative hinting importance of the gun in story and yet it ending being never brought up again, so your quote that claimed gun had to be used is wrong .

 

Second thing , having new protagonist and inquistior returning in next game are two different matters , as i said you may excpet that Inquistor returns doesn't mean he returns because he said so , as Leliana seting up something with HoF and Hawke didn't mean it had to go way Leliana said because she set that up. 

[nightscrawl]

Except talking to Josephine about your family does serve a narrative function, to define your character. You are not defining your character in the last ten minutes of the game.

RP choices are RP choices, whether they're made at the beginning or the end of the game. I'll give another example. Regardless of your choice, at the end of Trespasser Dorian leaves for Tevinter. The Inquisitor, whether friend or romance, can choose to be supportive or not, but that does not change the outcome. Also, as far as I know, you can't break up with him, so even a romance who picks the pissy remarks is still in a romance with him. Nothing changes. It is only a matter of picking the RP choice that is appropriate for your character in the scene.

 

I don't deny that that particular utterance by the Inquisitor can be seen as significant, but I think it should be viewed differently because this is an RPG, not a passive medium like a novel or film where you are at the whim of the creator.

 

You are taking the gun example too literally. Of course you can have guns on a wall simply to show someone is a hunter. But if the camera zooms in on one particular gun, whilst omnious music plays, and the characters talk about how important it is that they are going to use that gun for a specific event, and then in the next scene talk again about how that gun will be used for a specific event, and then that event occurs with no mention of the gun, your audience is going to be very confused.

Well your example was rather literal: "Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." I had never heard of this before, so that was all I had to go on.

"Remove everything" seems rather clear to me, which is why I responded as I did. The example you cite above is certainly an example of narrative weight, and I don't disagree with the gun principle in that sense.


At any rate, this is getting off topic...

[diaspora2k5]

I hope everyone's HOF gets killed offscreen.

[Aren]

Actually, Flemeth does bring something to the story.  She brings the knowledge of how to either summon a dragon to fight against Cory's, or teaches Morrigan to shapeshift into one.  No matter how much you want to handwave it away, Morrigan is entwined in that part of the game.  She brings the eluvian, and the knowledge on how to use it.  For some reason, some seem to believe that where it comes from matters, like they can't be moved, or something, I'm not sure, all the arguments read the same when the main idea is "bring back the HoF".  However, w/out that knowledge, we're not going to the Temple of Mythal.  This is, after all, her excuse for getting us to go, regardless if she knew the truth beforehand.

Of course Flemeth is vital for the plot of DAI i never stated otherwise it was Morrigan whom i was arguing about.

She is entwined in that part of the game but it is not necessary because the Inquisitor is able to summon Flemeth even without Morrigan and is able to tame the dragon without Morrigan just as is able to manipulate the eluvian in the temple of Mythal without Morrigan just as it have Solas to describe the info at the temple,that previous post was more around the conflict of Morrigan vs Flemeth being pretty much irrelevant for the Inqusitor who need only the help of Flemeth.

[Donquijote and 59 others]

I hope everyone's HOF gets killed offscreen.

Ehi EHi 'm hoping that they resurrect the dead warden in some capacity and you want  to kill even those who are not dead?

We are in the opposite binary

[Abyss108]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't make a gun example, I quoted one of the most highly rated writors of all time. 

 

https://en.m.wikiped...i/Anton_Chekhov

[Aren]

 

 

 

First of all why you mixed-up our discussion Morrigan having important role in dragon age franchise with discussion about being writers pet? I pretty sure i used different arguments for writers pet discussion , so you attempted look me bad by making my logic look ridiculous and in the end you made yourself look ridiculous because you tried ascribe my arguments that i used in topic A to Topic B despite i used different arguments in topic B.   

 

Second main conflict isn't only conflict in the series because it seems you fail to grasp that , conflict between Flemeth and Morrigan was set up since beginning of the series whether you like it or not and this conflict is part of franchise , Flemeth and Morrigan appear because their role and story in the franchise wasn't over and writers made it clear.

 

Cullen and Leliana weren't necessary once again, because there was no necessity to bring back those characters as they had no further role set up in the series like Flemeth ,Morrigan or Solas, and Cullen was fan-service because he was brought back just to appease his fans plain and simple.

 

So no problem is with you , as you fail to grasp what im saying and you are trying to twist what im saying and then talk about something i didn't even said.

 

 

 

I haven't mixed up anything since i'm repeating  always the same argument since my first post which is:

 

Those who do not absolve to the task of being fundamental in their role for the main plot of DAI and are also old characters are writers pets

 because their presence was not necessary for the main plot and Morrigan(unless someone will point out a situation in which she is necessary) does belong to this category,her personal struggle with Flemeth is absolutely irrelevant to carry forward the main plot of DAI.

 

-No, i didn't failed to grasp anything this you who  shifted the argument now,since i always referred to the main plot and never once i said the main plot is everything.

Unlike Morrigan ,Flemeth is vital for the main plot of DAI,without her you fail,without Morrigan it makes no difference,understood now what is my definition of writers pet since i couldn't care less to abide at yours definition of writers pet?

 

-You are biased towards favouritism,Leliana was set up since DA2 to be one of the founder of the Inquisition alongside with Cassandra it was pretty clear since DAII that she was necessary just as Cassandra and in fact she was set up since D2 to occupy that position

 

Pretend to have the truth solely based on your personal definition and perception of what is relevant or not does make your argument flawed in its core base.

[TheKomandorShepard]

I didn't make a gun example, I quoted one of the most highly rated writors of all time. 

 

https://en.m.wikiped...i/Anton_Chekhov

 

Sorry, but he was wrong, despite many stories tend consist on chekhov's gun it isn't universal and there is a lot of stories with elements that lead nowhere and toy with expectations of viewers as i previously mentioned.

 

 

 

 

I haven't mixed up anything since i'm repeating  always the same argument since my first post which is:

 

Those who do not absolve to the task of being fundamental in their role for the main plot of DAI and are also old characters are writers pets

 because their presence was not necessary for the main plot and Morrigan(unless someone will point out a situation in which she is necessary) does belong to this category,her personal struggle with Flemeth is absolutely irrelevant to carry forward the main plot of DAI.

 

-No, i didn't failed to grasp anything this you who  shifted the argument now,since i always referred to the main plot and never once i said the main plot is everything.

Unlike Morrigan Flemeth is vital for the main plot of DAI,without her you fail,without Morrigan it makes no difference,understood now what is my definition of writers pet since i couldn't care less to abide at yours definition of writers pet?

 

-You are biased towards favouritism,Leliana was set up since DA2 to be one of the founder of the Inquisition alongside with Cassandra it was pretty clear since DAII that she was necessary just as Cassandra and in fact she was set up since D2 to occupy that position

 

Pretend to have the truth solely based on your personal definition and perception of what is relevant or not does make your argument flawed in its core base.

 

 

Lol, you are being absolutely ridiculous and deny now that you tried prescribe my arguments that were addressed to different issue and ignored my actual arguments on that issue just to make you look better , sorry but no you mixed two different topics we discussed and tried falsly prescribe my arguments from topic #1 in topic #2.

 

Sorry , but Corypheus isn't only conflict in Inquistion there are other conflicts like mage-templar war or Gaspard-Briala-Celene conflict as well , Morrigan conflict with Flemeth is as well part of main plot as it is mandatory part of main plot even if conflict is only touched.So once again devs simply once again move forward plot that is larger than single game and was announced long before dai.  

 

Yes you did fail grasp it, you have showed it with that very comment , first of all once again that Morrigan conflict has nothing to do with conflict with Corypheus means nothing because it doesn't not have to just like Qunari conflict doesn't have to do anything with Mage-Templar conflict. Morrigan-Flemeth conflict is its own conflict that happens whenever you like it or not, is mandatory and was announced years ago meaning that this conflict and plot would frame more than 1 game.Sorry, but you may define writers pet as writers dog if you want i don't care, when i spoke about writers pet i meant cleary what it meant thus writers favorite that is Leliana and i explained why.

 

Sorry , but that you are using logical fallacy doesn't mean im biased. First of all Leliana had no reason to return after her first appearance in dao, didn't have established any future plot, plus she was brought from dead as player could have killed so there was plenty reason to not brought her back yet they brought her in spite all of it. Morrigan conflict with Flemeth was established since her appearance in first game where she was introduced, so she had always set up reasons to return , plus player never killed her , just injured leaving her with heavily ambiguous fate.

 

Pretty much you are fond of changing things im saying , swapping topics and trying prescribe my arguments into them denying it when called out on doing so and applying logical fallacies , so it is clear you are on predending have truth here .    

[robertthebard]

Except talking to Josephine about your family does serve a narrative function, to define your character. You are not defining your character in the last ten minutes of the game.

 

You are taking the gun example too literally. Of course you can have guns on a wall simply to show someone is a hunter. But if the camera zooms in on one particular gun, whilst omnious music plays, and the characters talk about how important it is that they are going to use that gun for a specific event, and then in the next scene talk again about how that gun will be used for a specific event, and then that event occurs with no mention of the gun, your audience is going to be very confused.

 

 

Except there was no conspiracy. There was a line of dialogue saying the hero wasn't around. 

 

A red herring is where the writors hint at one thing, to stop you figuring out the real answer for a twist. There's no benefit to trying trick players into thinking the Inquisitors might return. That doesn't make players surprised when we get a new protagonist, because we already expect that, and there's no point to surprising people with that.

Except that defining your character is RP, which is what the poster you quoted said.  Otherwise we may as well all be playing CoD or an equivalent shooter.

[Abyss108]

Except that defining your character is RP, which is what the poster you quoted said.  Otherwise we may as well all be playing CoD or an equivalent shooter.

 

Which relies on the answer you picking being the truth. If your character states they are going to do something, they can not drop off the face of the earth without doing it or attempting to do it, or you haven't defined your character at all, the game has just turned around and said "nope, you can't have that option we just gave you".

[In Exile]

I've lost the thread of this thread. What's this essential unfired Chekov's gun?

[The Hierophant]

Holy **** TheKomandorShepard got better at posting in english?! Nice.

 

On topic, i'd prefer it if the HoF remained in retirement. I don't want the devs to waste any time in addressing the HoF's save import baggage because it's possible that the other areas of the game's narrative would be given less attention, and are left underdeveloped as a result.

[KaiserShep]

Holy **** TheKomandorShepard got better at posting in english?! Nice.

Clearly the work of blood magic.

[Bowlcuts]

Bringing back a silent protagonist in a fully voiced encompassed universe? Yeah, that'll work. 

I'm fine with my HoF fading away into the Abyss. Shepard? Not so much.

[robertthebard]

Which relies on the answer you picking being the truth. If your character states they are going to do something, they can not drop off the face of the earth without doing it or attempting to do it, or you haven't defined your character at all, the game has just turned around and said "nope, you can't have that option we just gave you".

Why can't they?  Why can't my character lie?  There is no "truth" in a video game, at least not in the "if you take this option, you, the player, will be doomed to whatever passes for Hell in your real life".  Imagine how many doomed people there'd be for Brother Genitivi...  I have yet to run into a scenario in a game where an option is provided, and then not added, did you have a specific example?

[midnight tea]

Why can't they?  Why can't my character lie? 

 

... So Inquisitor would just lie about redeeming Solas, or trying to stop him? And than just f*** off to a tiny island to drink fermented fruit juice?

Context of such choices matters.

[Abyss108]

Why can't they?  Why can't my character lie?  There is no "truth" in a video game, at least not in the "if you take this option, you, the playerlying.l be doomed to whatever passes for Hell in your real life".  Imagine how many doomed people there'd be for Brother Genitivi...  I have yet to run into a scenario in a game where an option is provided, and then not added, did you have a specific example?

 

Are you purposely missing the point? Of course you can lie, if the option is presented as a lie. The game can't suddenly decide an option presented to as the truth was actually your character lying. We are specifically talking about picking the option saying you are going to try to save/kill Solas, being taken back and your character not trying to do that because "saying you will climb a mountain in real life doesn't mean you actually will".

[Donquijote and 59 others]

Bringing back a silent protagonist in a fully voiced encompassed universe? Yeah, that'll work. 

 

Developers said that the final narrator of the Trespasser epilogues was the warden of DAO

[robertthebard]

Are you purposely missing the point? Of course you can lie, if the option is presented as a lie. The game can't suddenly decide an option presented to as the truth was actually your character lying. We are specifically talking about picking the option saying you are going to try to save/kill Solas, being taken back and your character not trying to do that because "saying you will climb a mountain in real life doesn't mean you actually will".

Who says they won't, even if they're doing it off screen?  In fact, has the next installment even been greenlighted yet that people can point at that and say "See, BioWare lied to us", or is this just some desperate attempt at an argument for bringing the Inquisitor back?  You see, if all we got was the Inquisitor passing information to, say, Dorian, through that little crystal they told us about in Tresspasser, then the Inquisitor is indeed working to stop/save Solas, depending on what information they pass along.  We don't even know if there will be a next game yet, and already people are claiming stuff in the end was a lie.  What's going to happen when the game's announced?  What's going to happen if the Inquisitor is set up as Charlie from Charlie's Angels, and you hear him/her, but never see them?

[midnight tea]

Developers said that the final narrator of the Trespasser epilogues was the warden of DAO

 

They were JOKING.